Donald Trump criminal sentencing delayed until after election

In his decision, Judge Merchan wrote that the case demands “a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury”. “Their verdict must be respected and addressed in a manner that is not diluted by the enormity of the upcoming presidential election,” he said, setting sentencing to exactly three weeks after the 5 November election. “The Court is a fair, impartial and apolitical institution,” the judge continued. Trump could face a sentence of up to four years in prison, but Judge Merchan also has the discretion to impose a punishment of a fine, probation or a shorter jail term. Prosecutors in the case accused the former president of concealing a payment to buy the silence of Stormy Daniels, a former adult-film star, in the final days of his 2016 election campaign. Ms Daniels testified that she and Trump had sex, and that she accepted $130,000 (£99,000) from his former lawyer before the 2016 election in exchange to keep quiet about the encounter. Judge Merchan granted a delay so that the parties could prepare arguments on the effects of the Supreme Court ruling on his case. Judge Merchan has already dismissed some arguments made by Trump’s lawyers to delay as “unsubstantiated grievances… that do not merit this Court’s attention”. “Given the unique facts and circumstances of this case, there is no reason why this Defendant should be treated differently than any other,” Judge Merchan said. On his social media platform Truth Social, the former president re-iterated his claims of innocence, dismissing the case as a “witch hunt” and a “political attack”. “This case should be rightfully terminated, as we prepare for the Most Important Election in the History of our Country,” he wrote. A spokesperson for Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney whose office brought the charges, said his team was “ready for sentencing on the new date set by the court”. If Trump is re-elected US president, he could order the Justice Department to drop the ongoing federal cases against him. However, this case in New York – as well as the election interference case in Georgia – involved state charges, and a president would not have the authority to interfere. – This Summarize was created by Neural News AI (V1). Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ypr3vd7x9o